I.A. No. 8356/2017 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC).

1. The plaintiff, engaged in the business of imparting coaching for examinations held by State Services Commission (SSC) and for various other competitive exams, during the pendency of the suit seeks to restrain, (a) defendants no.2 to 6, contractually committed with the plaintiff to during the period of their contract from teaching in defendant no.1, carrying on the same business/vocation as plaintiff and thus a competitor of the plaintiff; and (b) defendants no.7 & 8 contractually committed with the plaintiff in administrative capacity, from joining the employment of defendant no.1.

2. The plaintiff, on 24th August, 2017 was granted ad-interim order restraining the defendants no. 2 to 6 from imparting private tuitions to any student of the plaintiff’s coaching institute or of any other coaching institute; it was however, clarified that the said order would not restrain the defendants no.2 to 6 from teaching students who are not enrolled with plaintiff’s institute or any other coaching institute.

3. The defendant no.1 preferred FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2017 and defendant no.2 to 6 preferred FAO(OS)(COMM) 168/2017 against the aforesaid interim orders and which were allowed on 7th September, 2017 and the parties relegated to addressing on the application for interim relief before this Bench. Thus, as of today, there is no ad-interim order in favour of the plaintiff.

4. On 22nd November, 2017, issues were framed in the suit and parties relegated to leading evidence on the issues framed.

5. The hearing on this application was also undertaken on 22nd November, 2017 and after some hearing attention of the counsel for the plaintiff was drawn to Arvinder Singh Vs. Lal Pathlabs Pvt. Ltd. 2015 SCC OnLine Del 8337 (DB) and the hearing adjourned to today.

6. Counsel for the plaintiff and the senior counsel for defendant no.1 Metis Eduventures Private Limited India and counsel for defendants no.2 to 8 i.e. Neeraj Kukreja, Harvinder Kumar, Dheeraj Singh, Rahul Bainsla, Prateek Chaturvedi, Vikas Kumar Mishra and Savitesh Kumar Mishra have been heard.

7. The contention of the counsel for the plaintiff is:-

(i) that the defendants no.2 to 6, during the term of their contract with the plaintiff, are liable to be restrained from taking private tuitions and/or from teaching in the defendant no.1 or in any other Institute; attention is invited to the following clause in the agreements of the plaintiff with each of the defendants no.2 to 6:

“That the Teacher shall not do any private tuition to any student whether of this Coaching Institute or other Coaching Institute nor be interested in any other educational Coaching Institute unless otherwise expressly permitted by the Coaching Institute nor be concerned in plots or conspiracies against the Coaching Institute in any manner till this agreement exists.”

(ii) that though the plaintiff may not be able to enforce the contract of personal service whereunder the defendants no.2 to 6 have undertaken to teach at the plaintiff’s institute till the period varying from July, 2018 till the year 2019 but the plaintiff is entitled to enforce the negative covenant aforesaid;

(iii) that the defendants no.2 to 8 have abandoned the employment with the plaintiff by unilaterally ceasing to serve the plaintiff and which the defendants no.2 to 8 are not entitled to; no resignation even has been submitted and/or accepted;

(iv) that such actions of the defendants no.2 to 8 are interfering in the business of the plaintiff;

(v) that careers of the students of the plaintiff are at stake and defendants no.2 to 6 should be directed to at least complete the coaching of the batches of students which they had commenced; however on enquiry it is stated that the term of the said batches has since been completed;

(vi) reliance is placed on (a) The Brahmaputra Tea Co. Ld. Vs. E. Scarth MANU/WB/0175/1885 (b) V.N. Deshpande Vs. Arvind Mills Co. Ltd. MANU/MH/0080/1945 (c) Lalbhai Dalpatbhai & Co. Vs. Chi